Vezi raport EN

„protecţie efectivă a drepturilor omului” the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented, Against the employer and the specialized newspaper was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 1 art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2007) Public employment notice. Conditions. Age. Sex. Self-notification (ex- officio). NCCD was self-notified regarding the publishing in the specialized press of an employment notice for filling the position of administrator within an association. The participation requirements included: male, age over 35 years. Through decision no. 23 of 25.01.2007, the Committee ascertained that as regards the conditions of age and sex no objective justifications were invoked that could impose such criteria. Also, it was set down that through the imposition of these conditions and their publishing, the access of persons in filling the position in question was limited. Was set down the perpetration of a direct discrimination deed according to art. 2 par. 1 and par. 4 and art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000. Against the respondent was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2

56 CONSILIUL NAŢIONAL PENTRU COMBATEREA DISCRIMINĂRII

par. 1 and par. 4 art. 7 par. 2 of G.O. no. 137/2000, subsequently amended and supplemented).

(2007) Labour relationship. Admission to profession. Magistrates. Restrictions. Age. Ms. P.N. complained about the fact that she filed a request of appointment as judge, having a 20 years length of service in the Bar and the age of 52 years. She passed the psychological testing, medical tests and the interview at the Superior Council of Magistracy. Subsequent to these tests, the admission request was rejected, invoking that the petitioner would be able to exercise the profession of judge for a limited period, in conjunction with the provisions of the law on the public system of pensions and conditions provided by Law 303/2004. Through decision no. 62 of 13.03.2007, the Committee set down that the provisions of the law on retirement and the time limit in which the judge position can be exercised are not an objective justification of the treatment applied to the petitioner. Or, although the petitioner fulfilled the requirements for appointment in the position of judge, her request was rejected on grounds of age, being considered that there is a limited period for exercising

the profession. The Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination according to art. 2 par. 1, art. 6 lett. a of G.O. no. 137/2000. Also it recommended that the respondent should modify the decisions in order to eliminate the discriminatory treatment applied to the petitioner (art. 2 par. 1, art. 6 lett. a of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).

(2007) Labour relationship. Pressure. Retirement conditions. Age. Mr. B.I., aged 54, with a length of service of 31 years complained about the manner in which employer made pressure and issued documents, in direct connection with age. He shows that in the course of a long period of time, the employer made pressure on the employees who reached the age for classification in the Ist labour group, with a view to requesting anticipatory retirement pursuant to the law on the public system of pensions. Because he did not request the benefit provided by the law and did not submit his request of anticipatory retirement, the petitioner was threatened, put under disciplinary investigation and his labour contract was modified on age grounds. Through decision no. 158 of 31.05.2007, the Committee set down that through his acts the employer explicitly referred to age and related conditionalities, under the specification that the employer is able to change the work place, wage or the labour contract. Taking into account the measures taken against the petitioner, the disciplinary sanctions, the modification of the contract or

positions held, the Committee ascertained that the notified deeds are direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of age according to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 2 par. 5 in conjunction with art. 6 lett. a, lett. b and lett. e of G.O. no. 137/2000. Against the respondent was decided to apply the contraventional sanction of warning (art. 2 par. 1 and art. 2 par. 5 in conjunction with art. 6 lett. a, lett. b and lett. e of G.O. no. 137/2000, republished).